Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Free Evaluation Form

DISCLAIMER

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

$12.4 Million Aviation Business Litigation

$7.7 Million negligence verdict

Los Angeles has Many Personal Injury and Business Litigation Attorneys

Southern California is the home to tens of millions of people. Each year, many of those people are injured in car accidents, truck collisions, aviation accidents, and slip and fall mishaps. As a result of this concentration of people and their chances of sustaining injury, thousands of personal injury attorneys practice in the southland. Few of those attorneys have the experience of Bailey & Partners.

When you choose us, you have access to:

1.

A law firm with more than 25 years of legal experience serving clients in Los Angeles, throughout the nation and across the globe

2.

The legal experts, accident scene investigators, medical professionals and other specialists you need on your side

3.

A law firm that has relationships with the best doctors and physical therapists in the United States for your referral

4.

A support team that includes the most impressive legal professionals

5.

Lawyers experienced in numerous multimillion dollar cases

Review of Bailey & Partners

Exceeded my expectations

5 out of 5

by Jill Rand

My experience with Bailey and Partners exceeded all of my expectations. Patrick and Keith were both knowledgeable, well prepared, patient and genuinely caring. At first I was concerned that they were "too nice" to represent me vigorously...boy was I wrong! They were BRILLIANT! They very "nicely" represented me to opposing counsel, stating my case, and the supporting facts with a smile on their face! They are not only two of the greatest lawyers that I have ever met, they are two of the finest people that I have been fortunate enough to know. It is with out hesitation that I would recommend Bailey and Partners. They are simply the best!

from our blog

In many personal injury cases, it is important for plaintiff lawyers to consider the use of a lifetime care plan expert. Physiatrists can be used for this
purpose since they are educated in orthopedics and neurology. This type of expert has experience and training in preparing future care plans as well
as the studies that have been done regarding the nature, extent, and cost of future medical care required by the injured plaintiff.

The expert that is chosen for this purpose in a pending litigation matter should be actively practicing medicine and treating patients.

The lifetime care planner should be given all of the plaintiff’s medical records and review them. The expert should be prepared to distinguish preexisting
medical problems from current trauma-related problems. The expert must be able to testify that he or she looked at all of the available radiological
films (MRIs, X-rays, CT Scans, PET scans) and any other studies done on the plaintiff before completing a lifetime care plan.

The expert may talk to current treating physicians and help educate them as to the future needs of the plaintiff. In that manner, each medical provider
will be properly coordinated in their testimony if required at trial.

A further benefit of utilizing a lifetime care planner early in the litigation process is that in addition to being better prepared to present a complete
damage picture to the trier-of-fact, the plaintiff will also receive the assistance of an additional source of medical consultation and prognosis.

The July 7, 2015 tragic midair collision between an Air Force F-16 and a Cessna 150 in the vicinity of Moncks Corner, South Carolina raises a unique question
involving a pilot’s responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. News reports and preliminary National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) comments
suggest the Cessna 150 was flying VFR, or Visual Flight Rules, whereas the F-16 was on an instrument approach, presumably flying IFR, or instrument
flight rules.

One crucial distinction between flying IFR and VFR is responsibility for maintaining safe separation from other aircraft. When a pilot flies VFR, he or
she is responsible for maintaining safe separation from other aircraft. A pilot flying VFR can request “VFR flight following” from Air Traffic Control
(“ATC”), which requires ATC to alert the pilot to other aircraft in the area. VFR flight following is not required, and it is undetermined at this
point if the CESSNA pilot requested it. Conversely, if a pilot is flying IFR, then ATC is responsible for maintaining safe separation.

Here, according to eyewitness testimony, the weather at the time the two planes collided was clear and likely close to CAVU (“ceiling and visibility unlimited”).
One aircraft, the F-16, was on an instrument approach, presumably under positive ATC control. The other aircraft, the CESSNA, had just taken off from
Berkeley County Airport and was flying VFR. Under normal circumstances in this situation, ATC and the VFR pilot would have the primary responsibility
of maintaining safe separation between the two aircraft. Yet, the weather was relatively clear that day, so shouldn’t the F-16 pilot have been able
to see the Cessna?

A pilot flying IFR on an instrument approach is typically “heads-down” looking inside the cockpit at his or her flight instruments, not outside of the
aircraft. I say typically because that might not be the case here. Almost all modern US fighter aircraft have heads-up display (“HUD”) technology.
A HUD displays the pilot’s flight instruments on the windscreen/canopy so he or she can potentially look outside while flying on the instruments. One
of the many advantages of flying with a HUD is that it increases the pilot’s situational awareness because the transition from an inside instrument
scan to an outside VFR scan is seamless and even overlapping.

If this F-16 pilot was flying an instrument approach on a clear day with a HUD, then he should—if able— have seen the Cessna and avoided it.
Not to relieve ATC of blame here, but a strong argument can be made that the F-16 pilot flying with a HUD bears some responsibility for this midair
collision. This last statement is crucial from a legal prospective. This midair collision occurred in South Carolina, and therefore South Carolina
law most likely applies.

South Carolina is one of the twenty-two states that apply a modified comparative law 51% bar to negligence-based causes of action. See Nelson v. Concrete
Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 245 (1991) (holding that a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than
that of the defendant). Here, if a judge or jury were to decide that ATC and the VFR pilot were 50/50 equally negligent, then the VFR pilot plaintiffs
would be barred from any recovery in a negligence action. Had the midair occurred a few hundred miles to the north in North Carolina, the VFR pilot
plaintiffs would have virtually no chance of recovery because North Carolina is one of the five holdout

jurisdictions which espouse pure contributory negligence (meaning that if the plaintiff is found even 1% responsible, he or she recovers nothing [Alabama,
D.C., Maryland, and Virginia are the other jurisdictions]).

As it stands, a wrongful death action against a US government entity would need to be filed in federal court as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Alleging and proving some level of negligence by both ATC AND the F-16 pilot might be the only way Joseph and Michael Johnson’s next of kin would recover
money damages in a federal court applying South Carolina law.

A person’s immigration or residency status does not affect that individual’s right to file a civil lawsuit in California for personal injuries. However,
it is not unusual in some cases for a defendant’s attorney to desire to make reference to a jury that a plaintiff is a recent immigrant to the United
States or holds a certain residency status (temporary or permanent) in an effort to create antipathy toward the plaintiff. Although one would hope
that such an effort would backfire, the issue of immigration may be such a hot-button issue for many Americans that it is important for the lawyer
representing an immigrant plaintiff to take precautions prior to trial to keep that information out.

The Evidence Code of California contains many provisions, including general ones, that state that only information relevant to the specific issues in a
lawsuit is admissible at trial. California Civil Code section 3339 provides that all rights and protections available under state law are available
to all individuals regardless of immigration status. Prior to trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer should file a motion in limine with the court so that the
trial judge can issue a pretrial order prohibiting defendants and their attorneys from making any reference to the plaintiff’s immigration or residency
status.

Bailey & Partners recently participated in a trial on behalf of a plaintiff who sustained injuries and financial losses stemming from defendant’s negligent
conduct. During pretrial discovery, defense counsel learned that the plaintiff was an English-speaking immigrant from Asia who had obtained permanent
residency status in the U. S. (a green card) and spent significant periods of time outside the country. It appeared that defense counsel was prepared
to pursue a line of questioning of the plaintiff at trial to reveal this information to the jury, so as to underscore the fact that a non-U. S. citizen
was seeking compensation for injuries from a defendant who was a citizen of the United States. That might appeal to some hidden biases of some members
of the jury. Bailey & Partners, prior to trial, filed a motion to preclude this line of questioning. The trial judge agreed and that line of questioning
never occurred. Motions in limine are powerful tools that plaintiff attorneys with foresight should use to make sure that potentially irrelevant information
designed to prejudicially interfere with a trial is precluded.

Flying emergency medical service helicopters is dangerous. Having flown medical evacuation in combat, I can attest to the pressure, chaos, and uncertainty
involved in getting to the point of injury and airlifting a critically injured person to a medical center within the “golden hour.” I’ve lost a few
friends who died flying or air-crewing these types of flights. Some of the dangers include rapidly degrading weather and visibility, unmarked obstacles,
power lines, and challenging steep approaches and landings to confined areas. All of these hazardous must be overcome when every second counts to save
a patient fighting for his or her life.

Not unexpectedly, there have been six fatal air ambulance mishaps in the past year. The most recent tragedy occurred on July 3rd in Frisco, Colorado where
the Airbus AS350 helicopter crashed shortly after takeoff. The pilot was killed, and both the flight paramedic and flight nurse were badly injured.
On April 27, 2015, a flight nurse fell to her death while attempting to hoist a patient up into the STAR Flight helicopter. A month earlier, there
were two flight-for-life crashes, one in Oklahoma on March 12th, and the other in St. Louis, Missouri on March 6th. Both of these crashes happened
at night with apparently marginal visual flight rules weather conditions. Another medical helicopter crashed at night on October 4th, 2014 in Wichita
Falls, TX. The last of the six fatal crashes was on July 17, 2014 in New Mexico. There, the pilot was attempting a difficult night pinnacle landing
to pick up a patient on a hilltop.

None of these crashes involved a routine flight. Yet, in every case, the crew was composed of one pilot and two medical crew members. When I flew medevac,
or casevac as we refer to the mission in the Marine Corps, we had two pilots, two aerial observers/crew chiefs, and two medical crew. Why the redundancy
in flight-related crew for a medical flight? Because eight eyes are better than two, and four brains are better than one. When you fly in bad weather,
under intense time pressure and uncertainty, and often times with a minimal power margin for expert-level landings, one pilot is not enough.

However, virtually across the board, US-based EMS helicopter operations use a three-person crew with one pilot and no dedicated aerial observer. These
pilots are predominately scheduled in a standby status, meaning they only fly if there is an actual EMS call. As a result, the pilots DO fly enough
to maintain currency to sign as pilot in command as required by federal aviation regulations, but do they fly enough to maintain proficiency? Pilots
need regularly scheduled training and proficiency flights/simulated flights. Are these pilots flying enough to be proficient in the most challenging
of circumstances?

Tragically, flight crew, and/or their families, can encounter unjust legal hurdles when seeking justice after a crash or fatal event. Flight crew, patients,
and their families do have several legal options. At Bailey & Partners we leave no stone unturned when finding liability and getting maximum compensation
for the injured persons and family members we represent.

Businesses that provide maintenance or repair work upon homes, cars, boats, planes, household appliances or office products are fond of presenting
the customer with a work order or estimate that contains provisions limiting their liability for personal injuries or economic damages if the
repair work proves faulty or is negligently performed. These provisions are usually found on the back of the work order that the customer signs
before work begins. The provisions usually state that in the event of product failure after repair, the repair company is limited to making
further repairs or replacing faulty component parts but is immune from any personal injuries or consequential economic losses suffered by the
customer. In the event that the customer is injured or suffers an economic loss due to faulty repair work on a product, the business that conducted
the work will use the signed form as a defense to any claim for damages.

That defense can be defeated if the customer can demonstrate that the limitation of liability provisions were presented with an absence of meaningful
choice and are unreasonably favorable to the repair company. This is generally known as the “unconscionability doctrine.” When that doctrine
is invoked by an injured plaintiff, a judge may be required to examine the totality of the form contract provisions in the work order, as well
as the circumstances of its formation, to determine whether the overall agreement was unreasonably one-sided.

Some of the evidence which is presented to the trial judge by the injured plaintiff includes:

* Whether the limitation of liability terms were ever specifically pointed out to the customer or did they come as a surprise after the injury
or damage occurred;

* Were the limitation terms hidden in a pre-printed form in small type, preventing the customer from having an opportunity to notice them and discuss
them with the repair company;

* How much time the customer was given to review the form before signing it;

* Whether the limitation of liability terms are completely one-sided.

Bailey & Partners is successfully prosecuting a claim for economic losses against an aircraft repair facility which
attempted to shield itself from liability for faulty repairs to a charter business jet which was forced to make an emergency landing in Russia.
The negligent repair work by the repair company caused the charter jet owner to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in economic losses measured
by the costs to repair the aircraft overseas and return it to California. The aircraft could not earn additional revenue while it was down
for extensive new repairs. By presenting effective declarations and evidence on behalf of our client, the judge ruled that the limitation of
liability provisions invoked by the repair company would not have been noticed by a reasonable business customer, were unfair and one-sided,
and therefore were unenforceable.

Los Angeles Aviation Attorney

Southern California has Many Personal Injury and Business Litigation Attorneys

Southern California is the home to tens of millions of people. Each year, many of those people are injured in car accidents, truck collisions, aviation accidents, and slip and fall mishaps. As a result of this concentration of people and their chances of sustaining injury, thousands of personal injury attorneys practice in the southland. Few of those attorneys have the experience of Bailey & Partners.

We have handled massive personal injury and wrongful death cases that require extreme attention to detail, unshakable calm under pressure, and a deep commitment to winning. We have also handled high dollar litigation cases especially in the realm of aviation business and wrongful death related to aircraft crashes. There are few law firms with our particular combination of skills. If you want sophisticated attorneys on your side who have a proven record of success, call 310.392.5000 for a free consultation. When you choose us, you will have access to

A Los Angeles aviation accident lawyers with more than 25 years of legal experience serving clients in Los Angeles, throughout the nation and across the globe

The legal experts, accident scene investigators, medical professionals and other specialists you need on your side

A law firm that has relationships with the best doctors and physical therapists in the United States for your referral

A support team that includes the most impressive legal professionals

Lawyers experienced in numerous multimillion dollar cases

We are prepared for any personal injury case that you and your family may be facing. We also have a legacy of success in complex business litigation and insurance bad faith cases. You may be especially interested in Bailey & Partners if your legal challenges involve the aviation industry: we are the law firm of choice for many clients who have suffered or grieved through a wrongful death as the result of a plane crash or helicopter accident.

Contact us so that we can help you receive the compensation that you may need for lost wages, medical bills, physical therapy, reconstructive surgery and the emotional devastation you may be experiencing. We will be tireless in our efforts to hold accountable those responsible for your suffering.

Large Corporations and Insurance Companies may refuse to Pay Compensation

If you have been injured in an aviation accident, car accident or truck accident, or you are the victim of pharmaceutical negligence, you may have to fight to get compensation. The insurance companies and other large organizations have determined lawyers on their side to resist paying your compensation or admitting that they were at fault. We will use all of our experience and considerable resources to hold them responsible. Call us at 310.392.5000 for a free consultation.

Insurance companies and large corporations may aggressively resist compensating you. For more than 25 years Bailey & Partners have been countering their strategies for the benefit of our clients. We will use proven legal dedication that will be adapted to your best interests. If a trial is necessary, you will have tenacious and skilled Los Angeles aviation attorney on your side. We have helped countless people just like you recover what they deserve through trial and, often, even before a trial became necessary. To have Southern California attorneys who have deep experience, sophisticated skills, and vast resources on your side, call Santa Monica personal injury attorneys. Your first consultation is free: 310.392.5000.

The law firm of Bailey & Partners serves people in Santa Monica, California, and throughout the United States and internationally, including Los Angeles, Irvine, Stockton, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Torrance, Long Beach, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Fresno, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento and all cities within Ventura County, Orange County and Los Angeles County, CA.